THE LEAD

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

The New Paradigm is Within Reach—But Perfidious Albion Delenda Est

April 5, 2017
Syrian President Assad meets with Russian President Putin in Moscow, October 2015. Photo: Kremlin.ru

President Donald Trump will be meeting with Xi Jinping on Thursday and Friday in Florida, and it has now been announced that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will go to Moscow next week, on April 11-12. The potential for a historic shift in the order of civilization — ending imperial geopolitics, beginning a new paradigm of peace through development and the ennoblement of all mankind — has never been as great as it is at this moment in history.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the British Empire has launched desperate measures aimed at dragging the United States into a new colonial war, as they did in the cases of Vietnam, Iraq, Libya — and now Syria. The intention is not merely to destroy yet another Southwest Asian nation, but to prevent their upstart former colony known as the United States from forming a partnership with Russia and China, ending the fundamental imperial division of the world between East and West, and thus ending the fundamental premise of Empire.

To that end, an atrocity was created in Syria this week, as chemical weapons were released in the town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib Province, either by terrorists, or, as the Russian evidence indicates, a legitimate Syrian air attack on an al-Qaeda weapons depot which accidentally uncovered and destroyed a chemical weapon factory used by al Qaeda's Syrian branches, releasing a deadly agent which is reported to have killed dozens of people, including children.

Immediately, the British, French and, unfortunately, the U.S., issued a resolution to the UN Security Council declaring the Syrian Government fully responsible and demanding a set of new demands and sanctions. As usual, no evidence was presented.

It should be recalled that in 2013, a chemical weapons attack on Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus held be rebels forces, was immediately blamed on President Assad, and was used by Obama to prepare a full scale military "regime change" assault on Syria, which would have left Syria in the same destroyed condition as Iraq and Libya, under the control of warring terrorist factions. Only because then U.S. Chief of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey intervened to stop it did the world avoid another war, which could well have led to a global war with Russia. At that time, Putin stepped in to arrange the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stocks, which was accomplished. It was eventually shown by the UN's Organization for Prevention of Chemical Weapons that the al-Qaeda and ISIS forces do indeed have chemical weapons and the means to produce them, and have in fact used them. Were the British to succeed in dragging President Trump into a war today, despite Trump's repeated pledges that there would be no more regime change wars and that the U.S. would work with Russia to address the actual threat — that of terrorism — there is no question but that it would quickly lead to World War III, and a thermonuclear war at that.

In the UN Security Council meeting today, both Russia and China, this time backed up by Bolivia, not only vetoed the insane US/UK/French resolution, but directly addressed the British Ambassador to the UN as a liar and a war-mongerer. In typical British fashion, the Ambassador had blamed Russia and China for vetoing earlier efforts to launch a war on Assad's Syria as the reason that the new chemical attack had taken place, lying that it was obvious that this new atrocity was done by Assad. "Your statements are not to be tolerated," the Chinese Ambassador said. "You must stop abusing the UN Security Council and refrain from such action." The Russian representative accused the British of "introducing provocations, beyond diplomatic norms. You want the UN Security Council to provide legitimacy for your illegitimate plans."

Will the Tony Blair/George Bush lies, which launched the perpetual Hell in the Mideast with their illegal war on Iraq in 2003, be repeated today? Will the huge potential for peace and development through global cooperation in the New Silk Road be snuffed out by yet another British attrocity, with American duplicity in the evil of "perfidious Albion?"

We are at a crucial turning point in history. It is precisely the willingness to act by every cognizant human being in this moment of decision which will determine if we have war or peace, destruction or development, civilization or a new Dark Age.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

SUPPORTING MATERIAL


Russia, China and Bolivia Call British Bluff at UNSC Session

At yesterday's emergency session of the UN Security Council, called by the U.S., the UK, and France to debate their resolution blaming Syria for the April 4 chemical weapons attack in Idlib, the British UN ambassador Peter Wilson tried to set the tone for the discussion with a raving attack on Russia and China which, he said, had "encouraged" Syrian President al-Assad to kill his own people, by vetoing previous anti-Syria resolutions.

The foolish U.S. ambassador, Nikki Haley, echoed the British rant with her own wild accusations against Russia for supporting the "illegitimate" and "barbaric" Assad regime and blocking the Security Council's work.

Russia and China hit back—hard—while Bolivian UN Ambassador Sacha Llorentty Soliz reminded those present that "we wouldn't be sitting here today," after seven years of war in Syria, had it not been for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and regime-change policies that have sowed chaos in the Middle East. China's Ambassador Liu Jieyi told Wilson to his face that his statements were "not to be tolerated...don't hold water," and that Britain should stop "abusing the Security Council" and "refrain from such actions." More than anything else, Syria requires a political settlement, he warned. The major urgent priority right now, he said, is strengthening counterterrorism.

Wilson had argued that Tuesday's chemical attack in Idlib was the direct "consequence" of the Russian and Chinese vetos of earlier anti-Syrian resolutions. He went so far as to absolve terrorists of any responsibility, proclaiming that the Idlib attack "doesn't look like the work of terrorists. We've seen nothing to suggest that non-state actors have this capability... Only one Air Force"—Syria's—has used these weapons before. He then challenged Russia: "What is your plan? We had a plan, and you blocked it. Stop blocking and start helping! We expect your unanimous support."

Looking directly at Wilson, Russia's Deputy acting UN envoy Vladimir Zafronkov stated that yes, Russia does have a plan: to combat terrorism. As for the UK, it is "irresponsible," he said. "Have you taken any responsibility in Syria? No, you don't. You're obsessed with regime change. You're trying to get the UN Security Council to grant you the cover of legitimacy for your illegitimate actions," he charged. The British ambassador, he said, has gone beyond all diplomatic norms, and his charges against Russia and China are unacceptable. "I would have thought that the diplomatic service of the UK would have long ago abandoned these tactics," Zafronkov said.

Still addressing Wilson, the Russian envoy said there is no need for "your resolution" to be passed. Earlier resolutions allow for a thorough investigation by the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), but the latter needs support, staff, and membership with a broader geographical representation, which it currently lacks. While chemical terrorism increases in Syria, he warned, the UNSC has failed to take any meaningful action. It has remained indifferent. 



Chinese Participation in Trump Infrastructure Program Possible; Legislation Coming Soon

In a March 31 interview with Xinhua News Agency, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao announced that President Trump would roll out his infrastructure program in the third quarter of this year.

"We are working on the outlines and possible details of the infrastructure initiative. A package will be coming out later ... in the next several months," she added, without further elaboration. She also indicated that there would be a possibility for foreign companies to become involved in the project.

However, according to The Hill, Chao briefed 45 legislators on the program today, and in an address to 52 business leaders at the White House yesterday, she indicated that legislation could be ready as soon as May. Speaking at the same meeting, President Trump said that the package will be very large and will focus on projects that can get underway soon, Bondbuyers.com reported Wednesday.

"So we have to build roads. We have to build highways. We're talking about a very major infrastructure bill of a trillion dollars, perhaps more," he said. "We're going to be very strong that it has to be spent on shovels and not on other programs. If you have a job that you can't start within 90 days, wwe're not going to give you the money for it." Gary Cohn, director of the White House National Economic Council, said that Trump's infrastructure program covers a wide variety of projects. "We've taken the broadest possible interpretation of infrastructure."

Chao told Xinhua that the United States "could certainly learn from other countries," adding that "there are [infrastructure] technologies and skill sets that we don't possess in the United States." President Trump has repeatedly praised the up-to-date infrastructure facilities in places like Dubai, Qatar, and China. However, Chao said that whether foreign companies would be allowed to participate in Trump's new infrastructure programs is still a "subject of discussion right now." Even if they are granted access, she added, foreign companies also need to change their old way of doing business in the United States.


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Related